Game Design #99: Campaigns, and Difficult vs Unsolvable vs Self-Imposed Issues

Campaign Issues

In a game shop the other day, players were lamenting how in a game like Mordhiem, a 'competitive' player would camp in a tall building in a corner of the map all game - and how it made other players lose interest in the campaign.

The question - 'how do we stop competitive assholes players wrecking a narrative campaign'  is impossible to solve, in game design sense. It's kinda an unsolvable issue. There is always a way to game the system - all rules have an optimal 'meta' way to play. It's difficult to stop people being jerks. The simple way is outside the scope of game design - i.e. refusing to play them. I'd class this as an unsolvable issue.

Another campaign issue that came up in conjunction with this was  (which added to the angst when a competitive kill-em-all/win-at-all-costs player meets a narrative 'fluff-orientated' player - whose minis are about backstory rather than meta) is where models are both characters that individually progress and rules are WYSIWYG and there is permadeath or even long term injuries.  

I.e. you have to lovingly scratch build unique models for your deeply characterful warband, but they can then die irretrievably/you never get to use them thanks to the above competitive player. Even 'upgrading' a model can be a pain if you have to glue on an arm between sessions. And if your game wasn't fun - even worse!

This isn't an impossible to fix - but if a rulebook insists:

A) Models can die and miss out on the campaign permanently

B) Models have to be individualized (WYSIWYG) to precisely match their weapon/upgrades

then

C) You are going (at some stage) to be frustrated your custom mini died on turn 1 of its debut or be resigned to faffing around between games customizing/painting minis.

But - it's only an unsolvable issue if the rules allows it to be. What if....

Only 2-4 heroes per warband can advance in exp (like say ME:SBG Battle Companies) and they can only gain improved primary weapons (+1 flaming sword) rather than swapping to completely different weapons like a flail, or allowing them minor kit upgrades that does not need to be shown on the model (healing potion, throwing knife, climbing rope). You can sidestep WYSIWYG. What if heroes can never die (cinematic licence) but merely are at -1 to all stats next game?

....Many 'impossible' problems are merely self-imposed by the rules designer.

Impossible vs Difficult

Another common issue - "How do we stop one warband from 'snowballing' in strength until it is unbeatable" is merely difficult. I've looked at this at length in a post elsewhere. A difficult issue is not mutually exclusive with the solution - but sometimes needs the question to be reframed.

Currently, I am fiddling with my modern jet rules, trying to make a squadron level ruleset that is simple and fast to play yet retains the feel of air combat - which is a complex affair that requires tracking quite a lot of elements in 3 dimensions. This has been going on for a few years and a few readers have opined this is an unsolvable issue - a fast playing jet wargame that retains the feel of air combat (energy, relative positioning, detection, endurance, etc).

But I think it is merely difficult not impossible. If you follow the 1970s Blue Max formula (as per CY6) it IS impossible. Common themes in an air combat genre:

- "Gamer is the pilot" steering the plane very precisely in 3D space (an issue if more than one plane)

- Pre plotted movement / recording / strict move sequence

- Some sort of special template / hexes (sometimes for individual aircraft)

- Very detailed aircraft/weapons

....ARE mutually exclusive to a fast playing game with 4-12 aircraft per side. It IS an impossible problem if I intend to follow traditional mechanics...

Self Created Issues

There is also self imposed issues - usually by slavishly following existing procedure or adhering to your own mental set of 'rules' or clinging to a favourite mechanic.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" <- Familiar mechanics are good. Change for the sake of change is pointless

I find most card based systems or fancy dice mechanics fall in this category. Dice and cards are just a RNG - keep it simple and consistent.

but........

"The Definition of Insanity" <- ....is doing the same thing expecting a different outcome.

If I follow the same premise and mechanics of other air games where the player steers each plane precisely, then yes I cannot accomplish my idea of a fast, squadron level game where a player controls 4-12 aircraft. 

"Kill your darlings" -> in story writing, this is when you decide to get rid of an unnecessary storyline, character, or sentences - cool ideas elements you may have worked hard to create but that must be removed for the sake of your overall story.

Sometimes that cool idea or mechanic is better off in another game. Sometimes a pet theory or cool idea must be sacrificed for the greater whole. Just because something worked well elsewhere (Song of Stargrave Rampant) doesn't mean it is suited in this instance. It may be a great mechanic, just not in this game.

False/Needless Simplicity

The lastest one I've considered is 'needless simplicity' or 'false simplicity.'  Simplicity is good. But pursuing simplicity at the expense of all other considerations can make a game worse.

- I've tried to make my homebrew space game completely recording-free YET use few tokens/table clutter. Sadly, it doesn't work with something is big and complex as a space ship. It's hard not to have lots of recording when giant vessels have many subsystems, shields and bulkheads to be nibbled away. I've had to move (unwillingly) to ship data cards - or have the tabletop covered in unsightly tokens. I had to abandon a tenet "no recording" (simplicity) as it was an impossible juxtaposition with "cool tabletop spectacle."

- Song of Blades and Heroes was the frontrunner of the move away from stats-heavy wargames. "One stat does everything." Unfortunately, to differentiate between units it needed 100s of special rules/traits/abilities - in the end MORE rules for a player to remember, not less. This is false simplicity - and was the subject of one of my first posts.

- Recently, I was looking through Grimlite/The Doomed in my recent post on the indie high fluff/low rules trend, and I feel the designer locked in many self-imposed goals which (imo) were needless or contradictory to other aims i.e. super simple gameplay; yet focussed on unique monsters with many special rules (a bit like SoBH) or 'no recording' when the game is meant to be a campaign or sequence of 'hunts'. Some of these were needless simplicity. I.e. "no measuring" can speed up play at the detriment of other tactical choices; but measuring ranges are not usually a major hinderance to play (and exist in 99% of wargames) i.e. the gains are slight. I'd call these self-imposed issues.

Redefining the problem?

With air wargames, I deliberately ignored games like Check Your Six which are typical evolutions of the 1970s Blue Max genre. They work fine when 1 player controls 1 aircraft in a big club game; but what if a player wants to control a flight of 4, or even a squadron? Regardless, writing down orders and leafing through move templates seems the antithesis of a fast paced jet dogfight where seconds count.

Instead I focussed on skirmish boardgames that handled similar amounts of minis. Kill Team, Infinity, even the much  maligned SoBH - what level of detail did they use? What mechanics? And could they be used to give the feel of air combat?

At a core level, most air combat games are very detailed - the player very precisely micromanages headings, altitude, throttle speed of each plane which may have a specific set of moves allowed (rather like a knight in chess). That sort of details is more an RPG than a skirmish wargame where minis often have 360 (or at best 180d) facings and move freely anywhere within ~6".

1.Relative position/facing must matter

2.Relative energy (speed/height) must matter

3.Detection must matter (eyeball/radar)

4.Pilot skill must matter

5.Aircraft and weapon performance will matter

6.Endurance must matter

X. Must play quickly at comparable speed (per mini) to Kill Team, Infinity etc

So I feel free to borrow from and directly use mechanics from infantry skirmish games - as long as all the above were very important considerations to the player every time they went to whoosh their toy aircraft about. 

I decided having a player micromanage precisely the exact speed, height, altitude of every plane - with or without templates - was an impossible problem if I ALSO intended to handle large quantities of aircraft, quickly and simply. 

So instead I intend to sidestep the problem - by avoiding traditional mechanics and usual expectations (the player flies the plane as if he is the pilot) turning an impossible problem into a merely difficult one. I mean, it's quite logical anyways: if I am the flight commander I'm not individually and precisely flying each and every plane, more giving general directions for the pilots to carry out... "Break left" or "He's on your six - evade!" vs the traditional "I'm Speed 6 at Altitude 11, 5 hexes behind an opponent, and I can use templates A, B or C."

I am thus looking at games like Infinity or Kill Team and asking "can I use these proven mechanics which handle 4-12 minis to simulate the core aerial combat concepts I've listed" rather than attempting to streamline and speed up a detailed system intended for a single gamer to 'fly' a single miniature so it suits 4-12 minis. I'm using 'familiar' mechanics - just not ones familiar to the genre.

I still don't have the answers but I feel I've moved the design parameters from 'fundamentally unsolvable' to merely 'difficult.'

TL:DR

Some game design problems are kinda unsolvable, such as competitive players ruining a narrative game. Or game design goals in a rulebook which are mutually exclusive.

Others are merely difficult.

Sometimes game design goals are contradictory - but are a self imposed problem created by the designer - perhaps clinging to familiar or pet mechanics or particular ideals.

Sometimes you may need to shift your own expectations or the parameters of the game; even abandon a game design goal for the good of the game...

Game Design #98: The Importance of Aesthetics & Background (Fluff)

Years ago I was interested in the role of 'fluff' - background/backstory/aesthetic. I'd say this is an even bigger aspect in wargames now - it's interesting how differently my 2014 self viewed it. 

The rise of 3D printing and cheap plastic kits allows more creativity and variety when making and kitbashing units. Self publishing, wargamesvault, pdfs and Kickstarter makes getting your dream game out is easier than ever before. But the competition has also increased. What makes a game stand out? More than ever, it is the background lore, aesthetics, game universe.

A Shared, Engaging Background

Say what you want about 40K, but it has a very recognizable aesthetic and background. Just like a stormtrooper or a jedi, you and your opponent know how your 40K units will look and act. Even terrain (if I say '40K corner pieces' most gamers will know what I am talking about) is understood and has a strong gothic feel.

There should be room for imagination, but shared expectations. Both players should know what is expected in the game world. In fact, having a strong aesthetic can help creativity - I mean, you can't make your own space marine chapter unless you know space marines have chapters and heraldry. I enjoy ME:SBG and how you can watch the movies and predict how minis will perform on the tabletop. Having books, movies and other media helps immensely in building a 'shared background.'  Some games, like Gaslands, can draw generically on post-apoc car genres from a range of existing, random movies and games. Others, like Battletech, have their own extensive in-house lore, RPGs and novels.

40K again does this well. Even if you are unfamiliar with the universe of 40K itself, the Necrons (Pharoahs-meet-Terminators), Tyrannids (Alien) are very recognisable - and space elves, orcs etc link pretty closely with fantasy counterparts. Overtly linking to existing, familiar genres and archetyles is a sensible move. For example, I know almost nothing about Conquest:TLAK but looking through the webstore the other day I went "ah - dwarves, undead Romans, mythic Greeks, late medieval/Mordhiem Empire, orcs on dinos, mythic vikings, mutants." Thanks to borrowing from familiar stereotypes, the armies are pretty obvious and even the models themselves exude a certain 'vibe.'

...vs Flavourless 'Universal' Rules

The first mini agnostic games from about a dozen years ago ('use any minis with these rules!') were truly generic and universal, trumpeting "Can be used for any minis from ancients to WW2"! The hook was you could use literally any model in your collection. But there was no background or aesthetic. It was, at best, a set of mechanics you could build your own background onto. Usually they made both weak ancients and weak W2 games - good at neither.

I used to own quite a lot of these universal rules. I play none of them. Some had interesting mechanics, but none 'stuck' beyond a playtest or two.  However I would own none of them if offered them today in the crowded marketplace - none of them would even get a second glance without a strong aesthetic/hook. 

BYO minis is not the same as 'use any minis at all.'  More importantly, the question is:

Are minis which fit this setting easily available? 

 Even better:

Does the player likely already own minis for this setting?

I suspect the audience of most indy games is often experienced gamers who have moved on from mainstream games. It's highly likely someone from a gaming group would own a bunch of demons. So a game about these already-available demons (Reign in Hell?) ticks this box very well.

Do games have a strong, easily grasped background? Do they have a strong visual aesthetic? Are suitable minis easily available? Let's look at some games which are not 'AAA big hitters' mostly from Games Workshop - perhaps even Flames of War (as X-Wing/Warmachine once were) but will do well as stars in the "2nd Division".

Gaslands - quite a lot of predecessors and media - Car Wars/Carmageddon, Death Race, Mad Max - a rich vein of background as well as very accessible minis ($2 Hot Wheels/Match Box). The rules themselves are (imo) surprisingly slow and gluggy but the strong aesthetic carries it. We know to what to expect: deserts, leather, spikes, and bolted-on armour and weapons. Kitbashing heaven.

Frostgrave - tapped into Mordhiem nostalgia, hunt for warpstone magic artifacts in ruined meteorite ruined ice city, lots of wizard archtypes - could use generic minis. Deep campaign and interesting strong background although the rules are merely 'OK.'

Mordhiem - weirdly, this use its own, now-out-of-print 1999 self as 'inspiration' - but fan created and 3D printed using old-skool aesthetics have resurrected this 24-year-old-game. Rules are very dated and it very much carries itself based on its aesthetic and lore. Seems to have new lease of life - I haven't seen so much Mordhiem stuff since the early 2000s. Does have current eponymous videogame as well as "Vermintide."

Battletech - very rich lore including novels, RPGs - second only to 40K in literature about it. Spawned many videogames. The rules are clunky 1980s but are carried by the strong fluff.

Necropolis/Reign in Hell - neither are particularly well known - yet - but certainly tick the boxes -  battling undead in a graveyard or demons in hell have both a very strong recognizable aesthetic and very readily available minis. 

The next two are more extreme...

Inq28 - it's more a pure aesthetic than a specific set of rules - perhaps using the old RPG, or homebrew Necromunda. It's the gritty, personal aspect of the grimdarkness of the 40K universe. 40K minis have are so plentiful they have spawned a whole market of kitbashing bitz and 3D proxies.

Turnip28 - relies on scratch building and kitbashing and has a very unique aesthetic - postapocalyptic napoleonics and root vegertables. While suitable plastic kits are cheap, this is very much reliant on hobbyist skills and aesthetic and is unlikely to have more than a niche uptake.

The Doomed (Grimlite) is a game about hunting monsters (Monster Hunter) in a post-apocalyptic world using super basic rules (but ironically lots of rules for the monsters). Not sure about the big monsters but the factions lend themselves well to being borrowed from existing model lines.

There is a common theme. All of these games have a strong aesthetic and distinct background. Suitable models to use for the background are usually readily available.

How Simple is too Simple?

I wondered in a recent post if indy rules are now leaning into the 'aesthetics' and 'cool' aspect at the expense of actual meaningful gameplay. I.e. the rules are stripped down to allow you to focus on the setting, but the rules don't actually promote any meaningful tactics or even link with the setting. As someone scarred by Wargames Research Group and Starfleet Battles in my youth I regard simplifying rules as generally good....     ....but are we in the process of tossing the baby (tactics, meaningful decisions) out with the bathwater (needless complexity)?

Do the Rules Match the Fluff?

Historical gamers are big on the game reflecting the tactics of the period. This could apply to fantasy and sci fi as well. Do the rules reflect the flavour and feel of the fluff? Do they match the game world?

Turnip28 does this well. In the muddy, terrifying messy world of trench warfare napoleonics and mutant turnips, units can blunder when trying to take actions. Their black powder weapons cannot be fired easily. They collect panic tokens as they stress out. Terrain is dangerous. 

Necropolis - units when they die are converted into wisps of mana which can be absorbed by leaders. There are strong magical warband traits and you can use mana to direct NPC monsters onto your enemies. Using sorcery is dangerous...

Frostgrave keeps to its premise - wizards grabbing loot to win games and winning combats by slinging spells is unsurprisingly the main focus.  

Even as we expect a game based on WW2 (a setting, albeit historical) to focus on firing, cover and suppression - rather than melee h2h fighting in ranks. So shouldn't we also expect a fantasy game to match the style of its game setting?

I think a risk is that as focus is increasingly on fluff, and mechanics often tend to be just stripped down, blander versions of traditional wargames (themselves usually pretty McDonalds flavour) the actual gameplay will turn into Yahtzee with pretty minis: where there is almost no meaningful or engaging gameplay choices. Style and no substance.

The lure of lore is strong. 

I own Dropfleet Commander. The models are some of the best I own. They fit so well you can click them together and they hold in place (you are supposed to glue them but the fit is that good). The rules are like Battlefleet Gothic but... ....better. So why am I downloading BFG's rules again and eyeing 3D prints which are inferior in quality? The 40K universe is just more compelling than the "humans, advanced humans, rebel humans, not-elves and not-necrons" of the Dropfleet universe. Or why do I hover my mouse over Bloodbowl teams in webstores when I know how gluggy and dated the rules are compared to the slicker and smoother Dreadball?

TL:DR Games with a strong background and lore and distinct aesthetic are far more attractive than generic rules. 

Rules don't have to be completely "universal" and use any mini - it's just that minis that suit the setting should be readily available - preferably ones players likely already own. 

However there is a risk that a focus on settings and super simple mechanics only will 'dumb down' gameplay - which may not match the 'feel' of the setting.

DISCLAIMER: Remember, I am just 'thinking aloud' with these posts. Basically shower thoughts, but on my way home in the car. These are my current opinions only - which can and do change. The examples I use are not necessarily best practice but to try to explain my thoughts.  I'm just trying to make others wonder "why do we do things x way" - I'm not even  trying to change anyone's views. Originally (in a world before Discord etc) these posts were to collect ideas in the comments when I couldn't find discussions elsewhere... 

Deadzone Minis... and the inevitable LotR

I'm curious as to Mantic's future niche. They used to be the 'cheap and nasty' alternative to Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, but lately they have had a price hike and they are just nastier, not a lot cheaper - in Australia at least. It's $A140 for a Deadzone starter kit (vs $120 for Kill Team) and ~$40 for a team squad box vs ~$65 for a Kill team box. Admittedly you don't need the 101 extra supplements and books - so it's probably cheaper as a system overall (though good luck finding players) - but the minis aren't significantly cheaper considering their distinctly inferior quality.  After GW stole Mantic's thunder by relaunching Epic after Mantic planned to move into small scales - it feels like GW is increasingly reclaiming the niche Mantic occupied. Heck, even Old World is planned to come retake its old spot currently occupied by Kings of War.  

(Random thought: I wonder how a new Epic will impact Dropzone Commander - a tidy game with lovely quality minis - another game I always felt was on the verge of collapsing. I like the dropship mechanics but I doubt it can compete with Epic's titans, rich background and 'cool factor').

These peacekeepers could double as Space Marines but are kinda paramilitary police for me.

The big guy certainly gives off terminator vibes.

These are 'scouts'. However I quite like the "guardsmen/generic sci fi troops" which come with lots of bitz and customisation. They have more realistic proportions than my old potato-faced, banana-fisted Cadian bodybuilders.

Snipers and weapons teams as well as some modified with Kasrkin heads and guns or whatever they are called now.

I wonder how wargame companies stay afloat in the increasingly crowded marketplace. Everything has a kickstarter. Everything can be 3D printed. Everyone can put out a catchy, trendy rulebook. I wonder if we have already passed the golden age of gaming choice (back when Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, X-Wing were bigger and had presence locally everywhere) and are actually heading into a new dark age as GW reclaims market share and the borderline gamers (like myself) abandon lower-tier mainstream companies completely.... at the expense of having anyone to play against...  There are more choices than ever, but is it getting harder to play something non-GW?

I wonder about product churn and shelf space. The local game store can't justify $$$ of stock sitting around and everyone has so many models competing for space that could be filled by a box of Magic cards that sell much faster and take up less room. I wonder if that is a reason Privateer has moved to print-on-demand? I.e. a bloated product line and no incentive for stores to stock them in bulk. Problem is, they are now competing obviously and directly with 3D printing and retaining the premium prices... They seemed to die after ditching Press Gangers? Malifaux seems to have reinvented itself  a dozen times and seems to putter along quietly. I'm interested if Infinity stages a comeback as it seems to be streamlining its bloated rules and seems comfortable to retire models like GW does.

OK, here's the inevitable "I painted some Mesbg stuff" pic.

Some cheerful hobbits and random models (mostly 3D) I found in a box. I'm kinda done - probably have a dozen broken models and duplicate heroes left, as well as 30-40 or so Rohan foot I have no need to paint. I may go back and touch up some paint jobs as they tend to be largely 'table ready' standard. 

LoTR model painted count for 2023 is now 430. Of those only a few are 'official' models as GW has a shameful level of support - they don't even MAKE some key units or you need to rely on Forg$world. Good luck if you want to play corsairs or Haradrim, for example...  Corsair reivers, I never knew ye...

Game Design #97: 1.5 Actions per Turn and Resource Pools - Controllable Luck

Controllable Luck

My wife, having hated boardgames as a child, is suddenly really enthusiastic about them.  It's cos she has abandoned Monopoly, Risk and Snakes and Ladders and embraced 'newer' games like Catan, Carcassonne - and more particularly, Sagrada and Azul.

It's basically cos new games are much better designed and thus more enjoyable. I could dissect the many, many reasons why they are better, but one in particular they all have in common has stuck in my head.

In many good boardgames, you are dealt your luck FIRST and then you decide what to do with it. A bit like getting a hand of cards - you can see you have a crappy poker hand and plan ahead how to maximize it. This is in contrast to most wargames where you decide on an action and THEN roll to find out if it works or not. Your cool plan may be wrecked by an unlikely roll of the dice.

Now wargames' usual "decide first, then roll to discover you succeeded/failed" is realistic (there is a lot of friction, uncertainty and randomness in warfare) but does it make a good game?

I hate hitpoints, but I understand them. 

Games like the latest '21 Kill Team and Warcry have swapped to use my particular bugbear, hitpoints. 

Hitpoints are fine for some circumstances, like spaceships, but are needless recording (and stupid) in human-scale skirmish games where you can take 9HP from a battleaxe and be perfectly functional, then loose your last 1HP from a rabbit bite and fall dead. /rant

I understand WHY they use them though. Mordhiem or Necromunda could be so punishing - a bad roll or two permanently deletes your lovingly painted mini - or allows an enemy to survive an impossible series of blows. Exasperating. Having hitpoints allows for some incremental progress and less binary dead/alive results. Even with bad rolls, you will nibble some HP off a foe.  Hitpoints - aka having a wider, more predictable spread of results - can ease the swing of luck. I reckon it's why 'buckets of d6' tend to be more popular than a single d20. It may give similar results but seems less punishing and tends to give a more predictable 'average.'

Resource Pools - Controlling Luck

...Anyway, I was talking about predictable luck (or being dealt your luck first). No, I'm not advocating a deck of cards (I haven't found one card-based wargame that didn't seem gimmicky-for-the-sake of it). Nor am I saying you must pre-roll a 'hand' of dice  (although that could be fun). 

I'm talking about resource mechanics, where you get a pool of actions (or bonuses of some sort). Spending the resource allows you to take extra actions or modify your luck. LoTR:SBG (and it's "Legends of" historical spin offs) did this with assigning Might to heroes. This finite resource (usually 1-3 per hero) could be "spent" to allow a mini (and allies nearby) to act out of sequence, perform extra combats, and modify dice rolls to mitigate luck. This elevated the games' rather basic activation mechanics (Side A Move, Side B Move, Side A Shoot, Side B shoot, Both Melee) and added a lot of depth and decisions - to the extent that there is a rule of thumb of "1 Might (resource) per 100pts (6-7 minis)" - i.e. too little Might allows an opponent with more to control the battle too much.

Random Aside: ...Amusingly, as I was designing a sci fi 15mm game for my son, I decided on a similar-to-LoTR activation (as my son knows how to play this), only instead of only heroes with Might the whole army generated 1 "Resource" or "Order" per squad or hero, to be spent universally, in a similar way. I then thought "rather than it be guaranteed, maybe either roll to generate the order or to spend it (with rookie units having less % chance than a veteran unit)....     ...and realised the mechanics I was describing was remarkably similar to FFG's Dust, with extra steps.  A game I haven't seen anywhere since about 2013...

1.5 APT (Controlling Luck through Choice of Actions)

Note: This is more a specific random example to illustrate how luck can be controlled in a different way, rather than a broad recommendation like 'resource mechanics are good.'

Most wargames allow your mini to take 2 actions. Move + Shoot. Move + Melee. Move + Move (aka Sprint). Sometimes Shoot+Shoot. Now for a game to be as 'real time' as possible, all units on both sides should act simultaneously. Failing that, they should do a small action, minimizing the time the enemy spends 'frozen' unable to respond.

The less actions your unit can do, the less time the opponents are unrealistically frozen. However we don't want our lovingly painted mini to do nothing. A few historical games have turns end abruptly, leaving minis 'stranded' without having ever activated. They call it friction, and I see why this mechanic is used - but I just think it feels unfun.  

So my homebrew rules tend to have 1-2 actions - i.e. 1 guaranteed action, and another 'maybe' action if the right circumstances are fulfilled. Now just rolling a dice against say a "Skill" stat does not implement any decision making from the player, but can be used to signal when initiative switches (i.e fail a roll, other player can start activating his minis). This is not ideal, but some decisions can be implemented - say if you take only 1 action you may retain the initiative (risk vs reward). 

I also like to encourage behaviour with modifiers. This is obvious normally, in any wargame. Let's say using a d6, you hit in melee on a 4+ and wound on a 5+. But when shooting you hit on a 3+ and wound on a 4+. There is no incentive to melee and every reason to stand off your opponent - it's more lethal. But if melee was 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound, and shooting was 6 to hit, 6 to wound - you are likelier to go hand-to-hand. Another example is in Infinity that shooting is very punishing unless you are in cover, where you get whopping +4 to both avoiding being hit and also +4 to your wound roll. You are strongly incentivized to avoid standing in the open.

I like to apply this to my 1.5 APT activation - so if you choose particular second action or combination of actions you are more likely to get a second action. In my tank rules, a stabilized US tank gets a +2 to it's activation roll if it moves and shoots. So there is an incentive to roll forward and shoot. A German tank with better optics may get +2 to acquire and shoot but an overworked Soviet crew may get a -2; allowing German tanks to get the first shot off. A tank with bad reverse gear may get a -2 if any movement is a reverse move.You can control your odds of getting a second action by the action/s you choose.

At the same time it allows you to program the way a unit will act most of the time; modifying the action roll to strongly influence the controlling player to choose particular actions - or play a particular way.  I'm fiddling with tying this to a chart for solo play - a kinda if/then tree based off the optimal choice.

....While this seems completely different to a resource pool, it's just another, different example of allowing you to better control your luck - by choosing actions with likelier/unlikelier outcome.  

EDIT: You can also respond the the bad luck (getting 1 action not 2) - which has occurred prior the actions - by choosing which action to keep/or a new action, making the bad luck more manageable.

TL:DR While it may be less 'realistic' having more methods to control luck makes for a better game.

LotR:MESBG - Heroes, Villains... and Lizards (3D Print)

 Repeat after me - Tauriel is not part of Middle Earth...

...but my daughter is desperate for more 'girls' so I caved and not-Tauriel serves as an elf captain.  I'm only collecting LoTR not Hobbit as the minis remind me of that stupid movie (OK, not so bad once I struggled through two Rings of Power episodes before giving up - but it already has aged poorly compared to the original trilogy...). I do like the amputee orc on the base though...

These serve as the ?OOP? Rangers of the North/Dunedain. I think they are Medbury but I merely asked my 3D print guy for "Rangers but some with armour."

These twins are Davale I think, but it's the last of that brand Ill get as they are trying to jack up prices across regions making them less attractive.  

 

Forlong the Fat, a random king, and a wizard which I painted blue as "I cannot remember his name". Medbury I suspect.

 

These are shades which are Angmar heroes. I haven't finished basing everything yet but due to visitors I had to move everything into the 'not ideal, but table-ready' packed-away pile. I haven't really played Angmar but they are my favourite Evil faction in regards to interesting 'toys' and 'tricks'.

 

 

Uruk shamans to spice up my White Hand forces.

 

Another Davale sculpt, proxying for Amdur Lord of Blades.

 

My favourite models, Rhunish cave drakes. I painted them to be half Smaug, half Doberman. Again the base with an amputee (this time a dwarf) is pretty sweet.

 

My LotR total is now 414 for the year (not bad, considering I've done quite a few other projects such as dozens of tanks, Mantic Firefight and rediscovered 40K models, modern 28mm as well as prepping and basing hundreds more minis including ECW, Samurai, 15mm Arabs and ...Quar as well as a few dozen PT boats which I have not yet begun to paint...). My wife says if I am good I may be able to get a Mumak and a Watcher in the Water for my birthday...

 

My son has discovered my 15mm sci fi are relatively kid-proof and I have been distracted to start a new set of homebrew rules - simple platoon level sci fi rules (not too gluggy) for my kid that I am willing to play too (interesting decisions and activation). I've got a 4hr car trip tomorrow so I shall delegate driving duties to my wife and do them then.  I'd like to tinker with an 'orders' resource (like LoTR Might meets Infinity activation pool) which boosts units/allows them to act out of sequence.

 

I've got 101 rules of sci fi squad/platoon level but none really strike my fancy, although I AM a bit out of the loop (my 15mm sci fi craze kinda petered out in 2016ish...). I welcome suggestions...

LoTR Fiefdoms (3D Print), Quick Painting Methods & Random Projects

LOTR 3D

Work has been hectic, leaving little creative energy, but holidays have seen hobby activity resumed. First up was a fiefdoms 3D print which is pretty much a whole army. Combined, they all cost less than a metal set of swan knights on ebay - which was the only fiefdoms unit I possessed until now....

 

These Dol Amroth pike are Medbury (go Aussies) I believe. 

 

My men of Arnor eschewed the emerald-green scheme from GW as green is not a traditional colour of the kings of the West. I probably could have used Perry Agincourt French instead (and got stronger plastics). Brittle resin weapons breaking off are a major issue when you play with an 8 year old.

 

Kettle hats are not my first thought for gaming Tolkien's world, but these guys stand in for axemen of Lossenarch when the official minis (while nicer) would cost me $128AUD for a dozen. These cost me $18AUD. With these 53 models painted, my 2023 LoTR tally goes past my 2022 record (335) to a new total of 384. And the year ain't over yet...

These clansmen of Lamedon are also Medbury I believe. They also showcase my 'gaming quality' quick painting style. Basically, I avoid any details that don't show up at tabletop ranges. I.e. you can see I've edged the kilts with a colour to give the 'feel' of tartan, but not actually done the tartan pattern. Cos as a middle age dad you don't actually see the tartan on a 28mm mini unless you hold it really close. I aim for ~12 minis in 2 hours or less. 

TIME POOR DAD PAINT GUIDE

X-Prep with sand and PVA on base. Undercoat with cheap black spraypaint. 

X-For the base, dark brown craft paint then drybrush a lighter paint like Baneblade Brown.

1-Basecoat, putting them down in the order so I can 'correct' mistakes with the next coat

2-Wash (Nuln, Reikland, Agrax Earthshade all get a workout)

3-Correct mistakes, highlights as needed. Edge the base with black.

4-Any cheap scatter like flock grass in this case so it looks like I made a mild effort.

My son's favourite mini is quite 'cheeky.'

OP SHOPPING

Blog regulars know I energetically 'op shop' (secondhand charity stores) seeking castles like the ones pictured. When I picked up a second Hogwarts for $3, I also picked up a picture frame for $1, sprayed it back and used it to frame a map. Anyone recognize it without zooming in?

 

I thought it made a stylish addition to the man cave...

As you now need 101 streaming services to get a reasonable choice of shows, I've cancelled Amazon/Disney/Stan/Netflix etc and have been collecting 20c DVDs from the local dump (they're a princely $1 to $2 from the charity shops). Besides building an impressive library (don't worry - I have 7 bays worth of sheds) this allows me to 'curate' movies for my kids. Ironically, old war movies and westerns ("violent" movies of their era) are often more PG than current Disney offerings. 

 

Just watched "Northwest Frontier" "Guns of Navarone" and "Lawrence of Arabia" (the latter inspired a 15mm project). I've got "Waterloo" and "The Bridge at Remajen" awaiting me to do a quick 'suitability check'.  I know less about westerns - any old farts mature readers have any suggestions?  (The "Fistful of Dollars" trilogy is about all I remember as my dad avoided watching them with me, having overdosed on them as a kid*). (*Random semi-related story: Speaking of overdose, none of my family eat lamb, as during WW2 my grandpop was so sick of the tinned stuff he refused to have it in his house thereafter. My dad never ate it, and thus neither did I. Generations on, lamb has never been served in our house....)

Shower thought: Will superhero movies be similar in 20+ years? I.e. oversaturated in one generation, a forgotten genre in the next?

 

In the park this morning I came across some Nordenfeldt guns. They were mounted on patrol launches back when we thought Russia might invade Australia...  From what I understand they are fed from hoppers from the top, and are kind of semi auto (you crank a lever to fire). Well, that's what I told my kid...

UPCOMING PROJECTS

Well my daughter is painting her Necromunda 'girls' and my son has asked me to help with his Star Wars Legion minis.  Unfortunately for them the rule is 'you can't have more til you paint the ones you've got'. Given my own lead mountain this seems a touch hypocritical but I have lived this for the last 3 years or so and it has forced me to be amazingly productive painting-wise. My son is also nagging me to do some WW1 Arabs and Ottomans for a desert board and 15mm is usually pretty breezy to paint.

 

Don't tell the wife, but I maaay have more LoTR 3D prints en route.... (one of the more popular companies supplying Middle Earth STLs is 'fixing' prices to the level it kinda defeats the purpose of 3D printing, so this is probably my last order, sadly.)

 

Imperialis Aeronautica and Dropfleet Commander painting continue to be sidelined as I can never make up my mind what configuration to glue the ships in. Since the former is discontinued I may not bother and just sell the box, as I thought the new rules were a step backward from the old ones and I don't feel like paying even more inflated prices. Guess I just missed the boat. Speaking of old school, I notice Battlefleet Gothic has a thriving 3D print scene. Hmmm - maybe a new project...  Although my recent looks at Necromunda, Mordhiem and Blood Bowl were not positive. Just so clunky and dated.

I plan to playtest more of my Panzermunda/Tankhiem homebrew tank skirmish rules (which work fine and I'm reasonably content with) as well as my modern jet rules (which I'll probably never be content with) as well as revive one of my old 'simplified Infinity' rules for my son to use with my 1980s Cold War vs aliens (not sure if I've posted up the minis?). Coming in a full circle, I may even try to 'make a better 40K' (you know, the way 90% of rules tinkerers started out) as I've found a lot of small groups of 40K minis during my shed clean out...

15mm Free Pizza Box Terrain: Factories & Workshops

The rules say any empty pizza boxes in our house must be turned into terrain which can be used for multiple projects.

Now my 8-year-old son is deeply interested in our dieselpunk post-apocalyptic world, "Panzermunda" - basically 1940s Mad Max with mutants, cannibals and zombies, and WW2 tanks as the primary transport.  I'm working on homebrew rules which are basically small-gang skirmish Flames of War; with individual tank crews almost like RPG characters. My son likes to discuss it, which helps me 'flesh out' the world. His questions include: "Would a Lee/Grant be best cos it has lots of room to sleep in - or would a Sherman be best cos it has easy-to-get-parts?" "Could a cannibal break into a tank when it's sealed up?" "Do the towns have castle walls or just barbed wire and landmines to stop the monsters getting in?"

 When my daughter says sceptically "Huh? Why do you guys have mutants and monsters with WW2 tanks? My son loftily replies "The poison gases and chemicals from WW1 caused it, of course!"

I do need some 15mm mutants and zombies but postage to Australia is usually brutal. Is there any good 3D prints?

Now roaming tank pirates and scavengers often loot the ruins of the factory cities, which can also double as WW2 ruins. My wife whipped up some templates in MS Word and I commenced cutting and taping. Our feral neighbours left some flyscreen on our lawn so it served as a window/skylight grilles. I probably used the equivalent of a $5 can of Bunnings spraypaint so these buildings aren't totally free, I guess.

My wife made some rather nifty templates in MS Word of all things; I merely cut out, folded and taped 'em together.

The templates mostly made small workshops and machine sheds. I have yet to do a big factory as I am running low on pizza boxes and I felt lots of smaller LoS-blocking 'scatter' terrain all over would be handier to start gameplay-wise with than 2 big factories in the middle and 98% bare table.

I chopped up a few with clippers for battle damage and used flyscreen for security/skylight grilles.

My wife did these two above as a test run for a smaller two-storey factory; but had trouble fitting it onto an A4 so it folds out - the next 'proper' factory will use 3 A4 sheets and be stuck together in several bits; also they will be about triple the size for a more "Enemy at the Gates" size large factory and tanks will be able to drive inside I think.

As usual, my focus is quick and table-ready terrain - I had only two hours to make a table of terrain from start to finish. Turning each building into an artistic masterpiece is more the reserve of Youtubers and the independently wealthy, not a working dad. So apart from gluing on the screens, just a quick squirt of grey/brown/black spraypaint and it's ready to go. If I had time, I'd bog the joins/cracks, use PVA (not tape) and add some texture (maybe a dusting of flour and PVA glue to make the concrete 'rougher' as well as using matchsticks for doorframes/windowsills.....

....But I'd rather just have more terrain. Next time we get pizza: I need two big mega factories to finish this table, then begin a table of 'suburban' buildings; not sure if I'm going terrace houses or Soviet apartments...